Volume 34, Issue 11 pp. 1151-1175
REVIEW ARTICLE

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shaojie Shi

Shaojie Shi

Department of Stomatology, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming, China

Search for more papers by this author
Luyao Han

Luyao Han

Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China

Search for more papers by this author
Jun Su

Jun Su

Department of Stomatology, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming, China

Search for more papers by this author
Jianmei Guo

Jianmei Guo

Department of Stomatology, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming, China

Search for more papers by this author
Fan Yu

Corresponding Author

Fan Yu

Department of Stomatology, 927th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Pu'er, China

Correspondence

Wenyun Zhang, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming, China.

Email: [email protected]

Fan Yu, 927th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Pu'er, China.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Wenyun Zhang

Corresponding Author

Wenyun Zhang

Department of Stomatology, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming, China

Correspondence

Wenyun Zhang, 920th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Kunming, China.

Email: [email protected]

Fan Yu, 927th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Pu'er, China.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 07 August 2023
Citations: 3

Shaojie Shi and Luyao Han contributed equally to this study.

Abstract

Objective

This paper addressed two focused questions: Focused question 1 (Q1) “what is the clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation (TSFA), as compared to lateral sinus floor augmentation (LSFA) in sites with residual bone height (RBH) ≤6 mm, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?”; Focused question 2 (Q2) “what is the estimated effectiveness of TSFA for outcomes in Q1, in RCTs, CCTs or cohort studies?”

Materials and Methods

An electronic search (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and hand search were conducted from January 1986 until December 2022. All eligible clinical studies expressly reporting TSFA in sites with RBH ≤6 mm were included. The data were extracted, and the risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed whenever possible.

Results

Seven RCTs were included for Q1 and 25 studies (9 RCTs, 2 CCTs, 14 single arm cohort studies) for Q2. Q1: Meta-analysis did not show significant difference in the implant survival, sinus membrane perforation and marginal bone loss between TSFA and LSFA groups. Q2: Meta-analysis showed TSFA had a high implant survival rate (96.5%, 95% CI: 93.2%–98.9%) at least 1 year after surgery, and limited sinus membrane perforation (5.4%, 95% CI: 2.7%–8.8%). The results also presented higher patient satisfaction for TSFA.

Conclusion

With the limitations of the present study (high risk of bias in individual studies), it can be concluded that there was no significant difference in implant survival, Schneiderian membrane perforation and MBL between two approaches in sites with RBH ≤6 mm.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors report no conflicts of interest related to this study.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data supporting the results of this paper are available from the corresponding author by e-mail upon reasonable request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.